Encounters at the End of The World

Werner Herzog documentary, about life at an Antarctic station, makes the sweeping polar landscapes look eerie and the people he meets even stranger.

McMurdo station has a population of 1000; made up of scientists, forklift drivers, computer techs and a penguin analyst, all of whom are really philosophers and dreamers masquerading as professionals. These travellers all agree that meeting at the South Pole seems to have been build into their destiny, the logical conclusion to years of trekking the globe looking for answers to life.

The station is clinical, climate controlled and complete with Frosty Boy ice-cream machine, much to Herzog’s disgust. But the home comforts and practical necessities of living in the frozen landscape of Antarctica don’t seem to distract those living there as to why they chose to be there. Almost everyone is studying an area of pole life; penguins, active volcanoes (more accessible than the Congo due to political unrest), icebergs the size of Texas or the amoebas existing under the 12ft thick ice they stand on.

Peter Zeitlinger’s photography creates beautiful, almost space like imagery of the ice-frosted landscape. The underwater world of swimming clams, strange phosphorus creatures and shy, tentacled fish glimmers in the lights from the divers in this dark, undiscovered Atlantis. Then there’s the Volcanoes, it’s contrasting fiery heat, spews gases and steam from its icy crater. These steam vents over the years have created a Labyrinth of tunnels to explore, carving up the ice under the scientist’s feet, leading the cameras through like mice in a run.

I loved this film, Herzog’s commentary is dry and witty as usual but with acute observations. Like all good films the mystery to his question “do penguins ever go mad, get fed up and feel like they just want to leave the colony” seem perplexing at first, (after all this was not “another film about penguins” as Herzog states at the beginning), but are answered later in the film leaving the viewer with a haunting image of life for one penguin. However combined with the beautiful imagery, the individuals he speaks to seem blissfully at peace with the landscape and state of mind quite enviable to those sat in an urban city centre cinema.

Best scene: under the ice diving, the deep walls of ice which appear around the magical Antarctic creatures.

Score: 4.5 out of 5

Digital Lynch: The end?

After Mulholland Drive (2001) Lynch is “done” with film. Celluloid is slow, big, cumbersome, disjointed, scratched, and “ancient technology” so Lynch decides to tackle his latest shiny, new toy and is like a puppy at Christmas with the idea of digital film making. Digital, in contrast, is lightweight, smooth, fast there is an immediacy which is almost addictive, instant editing, autofocus all allows for the full artist's freedom from the clunky technical requirements of celluloid.

For Lynch you can see why this is so important, the ability to zoom in close to a scene (without the constraints of a boom operator, grips, camera men) the financial freedom of knowing a scene can keep going without the audio whirl of money being spent (celluloid films are expensive which is why we can “thank” digital for making programmes like Big Brother financially viable.). The organic nature of digital seems to fit Lynch’s creative vision so well, if a director can keep focused on a scene, keep seeing what is unveiled from the actors, the subtle changes in pace, emotion or tension then the end result will surely be better. There’s no one likes to dwell on a scene more than Lynch, his love of “quiet” space to jar so aggressively against “loud” space in his films is unique and as a auteur it’s almost what defines him.

Digital production

So as we’ve established digital production allows for self indulgence. With whizzy cameras and the right editing software digital film-making has been blown open to the masses, allowing everyone to edit, prepare and distribute at a click of a button their film to a potential audience of millions with little cost. For Lynch, this means two fingers to the studios who for so many years tried to control his vision, making it available to the masses, but on their commercial terms. As an auteur Lynch in a digital world is completely free and don’t we know it.

Inland Empire is a film you can appreciate but not love, easy to respect as an experiment, hard to sit through. Without the outside perspective of a studio boss, Lynch’s freedom runs wild, his love of fractured identities, disjointed stories (Twin Peaks style) takes on an existentialist quality of its own, leaving even hardcore Lynch fans somewhat hungering for closure on at least one storyline.

Much like Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire started out as an experiment, a series of monologues with leading lady and Lynch favourite Laura Dern. Fragments which become feature.

Digital quality

What is lost with digital? The compressed nature of digital files means that the “warmth” of film has been coldly wiped away, one megapixel at a time. The richness that comes from analogue distortions has been replaced with cold technical silence (there’s no background click, buzz or whir or the camera in those “silent” moments). As an audience we de-value digital – it misses the “luxury” quality we associate with celluloid – we like our TV to look like film afterall (Sopranos, ER etc)

Digital distribution

With little cost involved with production, surely digital ensures a healthy profit when it comes to distribution? Inland Empire was distributed by Lynch but as with all new technologies not all cinema’s had caught up with the digital trend and as such as limited ways to show the film. Using the Internet to launch the marketing, Lynch has used viral, communities and blogs to his advantage to gather the force of hardcore fans to leave their home comforts and head for the cinema. But why? A digitally produced movie, using digital components to edit, produce and add a digital soundtrack, using digital mediums to drive traffic and interest and then ask people to leave their digital arena and watch it in a cinema? A holistic effort gone too far. These digital fans were already with Lynch, they were sat there waiting for the film, in an instant he could have uploaded the movie and in another instant millions could have seen it.

Digital reception

Nope. This is not how Lynch wants you to see the film. He’s old school at heart. The tiny nuances of his soundtracks, his imagery, his cinematography, the painstakingly hand-carved film sets are not there to be viewed on your MP3 or PC. Hell no. This is a “putrified, false” experience according to Lynch.

The freedom of digital comes with a price. Death of the auteur, in a digital world a director has even less freedom to control how people view his work. What makes movies great is the tension between artistic freedom and business between culture/ industry. Let’s face it, a I pod with great headphones will probably let you hear those tiny nuances better than an old cinema with fading Dolby surround sound.

The question is now, is Lynch done with film? Will he next turn full circle and with the artistic and financial freedom of digital return to “moving pictures” will the artistic ambitions of youth finally be realised?

Angels and Demons - No 'Thrills' Value

Well, there certainly was no mystery with Ron Howard’s latest film, the sequel to the Davinci Code, Angels and Demons. Tom Hanks returns as the professor Robert Langdon and we’re introduced to him gracefully powering the lengths of the Harvard sports swimming pool. Quite rightly Audrey Tatou thought it wise to give this sequel a miss.

The story kicks off with a gruesome murder of a research scientist in Grenoble, who, oh yeah that’s right, happens to be a catholic priest (of course). The Vatican Police are sent to investigate and are send a warning by the Catholic Church’s old enemies, The Illuminate. With scary warning letter in hand, the Vatican Police track down professor Robert Langdon to help them stop find four missing cardinals, the “prefferati” to replace the recently deceased Pope.

Ron Howard has a strange relationship with the audience in Angels and Demons - in one hand he assumes you’ve read the book, or at least seen the DaVinci code. In one hand Howard offers little background about Langdon, and why he seems so motivated to help the Vatican Police and in the other hand he uses the other characters around him as tedious plot devices, asking obvious and boring questions to sum up or move on the plot. Yawn. It’s a good job every other character in Angels and Demons is an idiot, incapable of working out the most obvious of clues, otherwise Hanks would have had nothing to say. What an appalling script. Even the moronic, lowest common denominator of Blockbuster filmgoer would have been screaming the obvious at the screen.

The pace of the narrative is the same; it takes the same amount of time to kill each cardinal and in cinema terms that makes for a dull 40 minutes as you drearily watch Langdon prance about the Vatican City. For a thriller this was poor. You don’t care what happens to the Cardinals, you just want the film to end.

The Church really had no reason to boycott Angels and Demons, or ban Howard and his chums from filming in any Italian churches, as no one should waste two hours of their life sitting through this drivel. Christianity is (unusually) not given a beating, and in fact Howard (through Brown’s book) seems to advocate there is an easy way to reach an understanding between religion and science. How nice and easy. Nuclear science is now proving the existence of God? Not sure everyone would agree.

The worst part is that this film has two brilliant actors in the lead roles, Ewan McGregor and Tom Hanks, so you know that the reason they come across as blank, dull, monosyllabic morons is because the script is so poor. Agh, very frustrating. The best part is how amazing, romantic, impressive, over bearing and awe inspiring Vatican City looks. I think I will be definitely booking a holiday as soon as the credit crunch clears!

Best scene: McGregor as the skydiving hero priest, less ridiculous than the book made it seem, but still absolute comedy.

Score: 1 out of 5 for the cinematography

Star Trek (2009) a humorous homage

Last night I experienced the first of what I expect will be a summer filled with Hollywood blockbusters and it wasn’t a disappointment. For someone who’s not the biggest Sci-Fi fan (I didn’t watch Star Wars until I was 18, and that was voluntary) it was an enjoyable, easy and entertaining film. My understanding of the original television series is vague to say the least and, admittedly, has been formed though cultural references rather than watching the show itself (I owe The Simpsons for that) but I still managed to pick up on the odd joke, or wink to the original fan base, the film makes. The best being Spok the younger, meeting Spok the elder and being informed that his previously said, and usual farewell would seem “oddly self serving” – which in turn let the film continue to live long and prosper. There was no “beam me up Scotty” but I have a suspicion that a Trekkie could tell me this is a classic misquote and was never mentioned in the original show, so perhaps why it was omitted, or maybe it would have been one sound bite too far.

There are some interesting twists to the usual formulaic approach blockbusters take, the most notable being that it’s Spok who gets the girl and not the dashing action hero, Kirk. Hot girls like logic, clearly. There were no overbearing or endless action scenes, the pace of the narrative was engaging moving the plot along at the right speed to keep interest but not complicate things.

It’s a pretty basic story line man destroys planet by accident, war lord seeks revenge, the bad guys die, the good guy gets the girl, but with a sufficiently odd twist to keep interest. Time, space, continuum for a mass-market - Stephen Hawkins must be spewing. But the cinematography is spectacular if not limited. There is the slick, clinical hustle of the Starship Enterprise set against the jarred, industrial bleakness of the warlord, Nero’s ship. The space scenes are restricted to beautiful stand offs between the two ships, to sinister, creeping black holes to supernova and warp speed whizzery. I liked the fact that this was the first Sci-Fi I’ve seen which seemed to keep space localised.

I also liked the way the “future” was portrayed – Star Trek’s original 60s costume department was given a modern re-vamp but essential stayed the same, as did the hair and 60s flick’s make up for the women. The opening sequence sees Kirk driving an “antique” mustang being chased by a cross between Robocop and the Terminator. There’s shamelessly no explanation of how this car could have survived 2000 years of rust or where the petrol came from to run it, but I think that’s why it works, the “future” seems oddly real, which is essential if you’re going to engage with the narrative.

To boldly go? Definitely, worth a watch and without the big screen the effect could be lost.

Best scene: Skydiving to the top of the drill, Kirk and companions battle atop a blazing piece of planet destroying kit.

Blue Velvet - Modern Folklore

As part of the David Lynch course at the Broadway, last night I had the pleasure of watching Blue Velvet on the big screen. The pre-screening talk was excellent and highlighted the ways in which this film could be viewed. Jake Smith who is hosting this course introduced the idea of Blue Velvet being a modern folklore – a fairy tale for adults. He revealed the horrifying truth that the original Little Red Riding Hood saw the innocent young girl not only being tricked into drinking the blood of her dead grandmother, but also being forced to strip naked to “feel the touch of the wolf’s” skin before being devoured herself. I could see why the brother’s Grimm felt the need to smarten it up for a middle class audience - bedtime stories might not have had such a comforting effect otherwise.

Blue Velvet certainly shows an uncomfortable portrayal of modern life (well, 80s American suburbia) and the dark underside of society that bubbles beneath the surface of white picket fences and immaculate lawns. The infamous line from Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle McLaughlin) “why are there people like Frank in the world” has split critics to ask if this is ironic or not? Is this a desperate plea from a young man who has lost his innocence or just postmodern irony? It’s hard to tell to be honest.

It’s a pretty straightforward film for Lynch, the narrative is pretty linear, there’s a beginning, middle and end, which is perhaps why it received so much critical and cult acclaim, despite the content, it’s a very accessible film.

I felt this was a film about the loss of innocence, a young boy, Jeffrey, is forced to “man up” in several obvious and some unobvious ways. The first is his loss of child like freedom: Jeffrey’s father is left incapacitated after a presumed heart attack, so he takes the reins of the family business and begins to experience respect and power for the first time. Finding an ear in his neighbourhood he feels emboldened by his new experiences to solve the mystery behind this horrifying treasure.

The second his is loss of sexual innocence: Dorothy Vallens (isobella Rossellini) catches Jeffrey spying at her apartment; mistaking his detective intentions as voyeurism she becomes sexually aggressive and fellates Jeffery at knifepoint. This experience is immediately followed by Jeffrey being forced, out of circumstance, to watch Frank (Dennis Hopper) sexually abuse Dorothy Vallens (Isobella Rosellini). Like a child hearing the unsettling creaks and groans of parents in a distant room, Lynch magnifies this child-like experience of sexual revelation to the same disturbing experience for adults. How very Freudian.

The third is his exposure to a world outside his own: Frank kidnaps Jeffrey for a “joyride” through the dark streets of Lumberton. Frank’s home becomes a macabre, fabricated commercial in contrast to the “real world” – a bit like Tim Burton’s ‘perfect’ town in Edward Scissorhands which politely ignores the gothic horror which is built at the end of the road. His known world falls about him as he realises what

The film has been criticised for portraying violence against women, but I found this film difficult to take offence at. The violence is administered by Frank, a man with some serious Freudian hang ups about his mother and a drug addled maniac, it’s not surprising he’s violent towards women. Also, I don’t genuinely believe Dorothy enjoys the violence in any sexual manner, it seemed rather she had been programmed to expect this from men – though that could be wishful thinking as there’s no indication what her husband is like.

Dorothy and Sandy (Laura Dern) are such one sided characters that it’s hard to empathise or criticize them. It’s an all too obvious, dark-seductive-older- woman versus light-innocent-girl-next-door scenario. I guess they represent the two sides of male sexual desire – a fantasy of the bedroom and a saint – and it’s written and filmed from such a male gaze that it’s hard to see they’re real people at all – for example, Sandy cries melodramatically into the phone that she forgives Jeffrey for sleeping with Dorothy because she loves him. Please, what a male fantasy.

Visually it’s stunning, a modern twist on film noir. The soundtrack shows signs of classic Lynchian techniques – mechanical noises, the unsettling use of silence – and the theme song by Roy Orbison doesn’t seem to leave a scene. As a modern fairytale for adults I’m not sure what the moral of the story is, but I can guarantee that you won’t be able to easily get this film or “Blue Velvet” out of your mind for days afterwards.

Best scene: Ben, (Dean Stockwell – Al from Quantum Leap!), Frank’s partner in crime, lip-syncs a performance of Roy Orbison's "In Dreams" into a lamp in a full face of make up.

State of Play

oops, been a while since my last post, but with holidays and the lack of interesting films at the cinema I seem to avoided venturing out of the house to the local movie theatres. Anywho, having a Wednesday afternoon free I decided to hang out with the elderly and watch a film at 2.30pm in the afternoon. The film of choice? State of Play, the Hollywood adaptation of the successful BBC TV series.

Overall I felt this film was about as entertaining as a BBC drama series (I mean that in a positive way) but I just didn't feel it pulled off the "Thriller" (with a capital T) in the way that other political thrillers have done previously. I still don't really know why. The soundtrack has a suitable amount of high strings and pounding, ominous bass lines to heighten a sense of dred (particularly in the car park scene), the acting is solid though not exceptional and the cinematography diverse getting the 'gritty' underside of Washington to contrast well with the slick, polished corridors of Capitol Hill.

I guess I just couldn't quite marry the idea of Russel Crowe (who plays lead investigative journalist Cal McAffey) being 'old college buddies' with Ben Affleck (who plays Senetor Stephen Collins) i don't think it was a miss casting as both actors played thier roles extremely well. I already think Afflect is slick, so playing a politician seemed perfectly appropriate, but a polician who used to be a millitary hero? No, that's just Hollywood farce - perhaps an attempt to give some credibility to their heavily criticised previous government official? Who knows, even though it was vaguely important to the plot (the evil private security firm Point Corp ruined his army buddies) but it seemed ridiculous.

Also, the whole, you're-out-of-date-stick-in-the-mus-I'm-new-hip-exciting-blogger idea didn't really work for me. Rachel McAdams is pretty good at playing the Washington Globe's sassy, young internet blogger, Della Frye, but it's just to obvious a set up between her and Crowe's character. Yes, yes we get it old school journalism has little respect for opinionated blogging, and vice vera. But what's this, they are working together? Overcoming thier lack of understanding of each other's disicplines.. and what's this, they've produced a fantastic piece of joint journalism which, my goodness, they are jointly taking credit for. Well, as a writer, and working with many other, far better, more successful writers too, I find it hard to believe that it would be a joint effort. In my experience there would only be one name printed next to that title, and it sure wouldn't have been the blogger's. What a predictable and sappy resolution to that little conflict.

Helen Mirren is an interesting character too, but I felt she was an American's idea of a British female editor. Throwing around phrases like "tosser" and "bugger off" just sound a bit contrived to me. I think it was a lost opportunity as Mirren is an excellent actress, but the script was going to do her no favours.

Overall, I was unsure who were the police in this investigative thriller film? The Washington police seemed to be the distant parents who would stride into the Washington Globe's office and give McAffrey and his team a slap on the wrist for withholding evidence, and yet it is the newspaper who solve the riddle? Odd. But maybe that's how investigative journalists work, having the freedom to take an unorthodox route to finding information that the Police are restricted to follow.

State of Play opens with a double shooting in the dark, g'rimey back streets of Washington. Cal McAffrey arrives on the scene to start another day's work investigating the murder of one and the injury of the other party. Sonia Baker is congressional aide to Senetor Collins and Della is tasked to tune her detective skills and investigate her apparant suicide. All three murders are linked to private security firm Point Corp and there seems an imminate threat to the credibility of Senetor Collins. As Collins friend, McAffrey sets out to clear his friend's name and secure a front page story and along the way stumbles into a huge government conspiracy (of course).

Best Scene: the opening scene where a young man chases through the streets of Washington, to hide, desperate and panting in the bins of an underpass. Bang bang you're dead.

Overall: 3 out 5, definetly entertaining

“Poisonous Valentine for Hollywood” – Mulholland Drive

This week I start a new film course at the Broadway in Nottingham, this time the theme is David Lynch. Ouch. I could have picked Hitchock and studied movies with clear constructs and narratives which follow a logical path, but where would be the fun in that? So last night I decided to watch Mulholland Drive (2001) and get stuck into the surreal workings of Lynch’s mind and films.

For anyone who’s seen the film you may well have had the same reaction to me when it ended; WTF. Well, exactly, it’s no clear story. This morning I decided to seek the advice of professionals and hit Google hard. It seems to be fairly conclusive that most critics assign the narrative to be first a dream sequence and second a gritty reality of the characters.

Betty (Naomi Watts), a “gee golly wiz” girl from Ontario arrives in LA to stay at her Aunts Sunset Boulevard apartment, on arrival she finds the injured doe, “Rita” (Laura Elena Harring), who’s suffering amnesia from a car accident the night before. In the process of trying to find out whom “Rita” really is and what the blue key opens Betty auditions successfully for a film role and the two women fall in love. Their story ends at the eerie club Silencio where on returning to the apartment with the blue box Betty found, “Rita” turns the key, Betty disappears and the audience are sucked into the black hole.

This section does seem dream like to me – Betty’s lines feel so “wholesome” and out of synch with those around her, her upbeat nature, her inability to feel fear, her extremely talented performance at the audition (smooth transition from naive girl to Hollywood seductress) all point to an idealistic attitude towards life. The beautiful “Rita”, a genuine 50s bombshell who’s dependant and submissive in nature, yet wiley and astute enough to work out how to break into Aunt Ruth’s apartment undetected. The fact the two girls are called Betty and Rita (harks back to 50s Hollywood), the easy way in which they break into Diane’s apartment and the fact they’re unfazed later that night by the horror of what they had seen. Lynch’s camera angles drift upwards as the characters speak (symbolising an out of body experience?) which gives the scenes a surreal edge, as do the winding (almost drunken) views of walking through the corridors of Aunt Ruth’s apartment.

The second half of the film depicts the sad, embittered life of Dianne (Naomi Watts) and her unrequited relationship with the cruel, beautiful and teasing Camilla (Laura Elena Harring). The audience sees her hung-over (drink and drugs?) tired and lack being awoken by the terrifying cowboy figure (twice, so we know things have gone wrong - his earlier warning to the director Adam, played by Justin Theroux) and in her morning stupor hallucinating that the Camilla has returned to her. Her sad tale at Adam’s party forces her publicly announce her failed movie dreams and re-live the broken promises by industry professionals while the twisted and successful Camilla openly taunts her (kissing another woman and fawning over Adam). The reality is Dianne works as a waitress and the vicious rejection she receives forces her hand to hire the assassin to kill Camilla, unable to live with her guilt she shoots herself. The camera angles change in this section too, no high angles (out of body style), no soft focus stylised close ups – rather the opposite, intimate, uncomfortable angles which show every imperfection.

Well, what about the old couple? Diane could be haunted by her own conscious, a failure to herself and her parents? Or are they simple demons in disguise? Are Betty and Rita the dream of what Dianne really wanted - her subconscious desire, her daydream? Or did everything really happen and all four characters exist together in some parallel universe?

Mulholland Drive is like the road itself, a winding, twisted route through Hollywood with some clear pointers and clues along the route, which, if you chose to ignore them do not stop you getting to your destination. Perhaps that’s the point, there are clues like the red lamp, the ashtray, the blue keys the people at Winkies but ultimately if you see them or miss them you’re none the wiser at the end, having reached the conclusion of the film with hopefully your own interpretation. I think it’s always a good film if you spend days afterwards thinking about it, and perhaps that’s the point as Lynch has never offered an explanation – maybe it’s one huge joke, made up as he went along like Twin Peaks to frustrate and tantalise the audience – the clues are not there to be sensibly analysed but rather to anchor the narrative with traditional repeated metaphors? Who knows?

I loved it; I need to watch it again but hopefully this film course will throw up some good insights along the way.

Best scene: the scary as hell club “Silencio” where we are told in several different languages that, “it’s all an illusion.”

In the Loop Film Sneak

Well, I’ve been delivered a treat this month in GQ (for work purposes, I’m not usually a fan of man mags) by reading an interview with political satirist and general comic legend Armando Iannucci about his new film “In the Loop”. In The Loop is a dry, honest and balanced portrayal of what happens in Washington. There’s no glamorous women, no noble presidents, no dramatic, witty dialogue and you won’t see a sniff of Rob Lowe or Charlie Sheen. No, this film appears to want to show the startling reality of political mechanics in America, the fact that decisions are made by fallible, frightened procrastinator who are just like the rest of us. A scary thought, especially when you realise the film is showing the decision making process in the lead up to a war in an “middle eastern country”. Well, I think Iannucci is keen to show just how involved the Brits are in the “special relationship” or how screwed Blair really was. I’m looking forward to seeing Peter Capaldi’s foul mouthed portrayal of a brash British spin doctor (definitely not Alistair Campbell!) and James Gandolfini’s pentagon general (I wonder if the Sopranos star will draw on his mob acting background to add fuel to the role?)

In the Loop is released April 17^th 2009.

Trailer: http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/4681277/12509678

Running In Heels

Lucky me, my review for Vicky Cristina Barcelona has been put onto brand new, Pan-European magazine for girls, Running In Heels!

Check out the link here http://runninginheels.co.uk/articles/review-vicky-cristina-barcelona/

The Young Victoria Film Review

I'm a bit late with this review, but definitely still worth mentioning. If you’re a fan of The Dutchess then this film won’t disappoint, but it also won’t promise the excitement and fraught drama which the walls of Chatsworth offered Kiera Knightly’s film.

The Young Victoria paints a (albeit overly romantic) portrait of Britain’s Victorian monarch from the age of 17 through to her first years as ruling leader.

The film brilliantly shows how youth can benefit and hinder for those blessed with leadership. Victoria’s youth gives her the confidence and fight to stand up to those wishing to take it from her and also the arrogance and pride to fall blindsided to those who wish to manipulate it through her. Emily Blunt is admirable as Victoria, excellently portraying the balance of emotions the young queen faced - apathy at court rituals, pride and ambition to protect her rightful throne, naivety and inexperience with parliament and playfulness and passion for Albert, played by the endearing Rupert Fiend.

I wasn’t a fan of Fiend in Pride and Prejudice, I felt his portrayal of Wickham wasn’t nearly as nasty as it could have been, in contrast his portrayal of Albert is sweet and understated and perfect for The Young Victoria. Albert understands the Victoria, the rules and politics of court and the inevitable tasks which lie ahead, but without apathy he confidently entrusts her to do the ruling (unlike the other men in her life) and is happy to pursue a more noble task of setting the foundations for a welfare state.

Paul Bettany’s Lord Melbourne, is the Iago in this drama. His villainous behaviour is understated and deliberate – a flickering sneer, a softly spoken controlling voice and yet, unlike Iago, he shows the heart broken resignation that the better man won.

I loved the film, it’s beautiful to watch, the clothes and fashions are exquisite and it’s refreshing to see the playful, mischievous and desperately romantic side of a Queen usually portrayed as a fat, miserable frump. Even though some of the film’s events fall short of reality (Albert never took a bullet for Victoria) it does help cement the idea their love story was genuine and something rare and precious at the time.

Next time I’m visiting London I think the architecturally acclaimed Albert Memorial in Hyde Park and the existence of the V&A will now have a more poignant meaning.

Best scene: Jim Broadbent’s rant at the King’s dinner party, Miranda Richardson’s quick exit and the snide, whispered conversations of the surrounding guests.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona Film Review

Woody Allen’s latest offering sees him steer away from the metropolis and the disaffected types who dwell in New York and London. Instead, Allen seeks to explore how the Europeans live and he presents a comic clash between American sensibilities and European liberalism.

The stubborn and sensible Vicky (Rebecca Hall) has come to Spain to research Catalan culture for her thesis, the transient and passionate Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) joins her for the summer. One evening, in a tapas bar, Cristina, love-struck by Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) throws caution to the wind and agrees to a spontaneous weekend away with this passionate painter. The weekend ends, leaving the obstinate Rachel frustrated and questioning her future with her chino-wearing-investment-banking fiancé. Herein starts the love triangle.

The addition of Juan’s ex wife, the explosive, chain-smoking Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz) adds a new dynamic to the narrative with the sharp tongued, fast paced conversations she and Juan have, or should I say, shout. Cruz’s character is there to show the despair, passion, freedom and restraints that encircle every relationship. Maria Elena is an exaggeration, but Cruz’s is not – her acting is fantastic in this film and worthy of her awards.

The characters are all likeable, even the smooth talking, womanising Juan. Each one has pre-conceptions of love and each fail to realise it. It’s not sad, it’s more a reflection of the true nature of love – it does change, it doesn’t always meet our expectations, we always search for perfection.

There’s the loveless marriage of companionship living vicariously through their young guests, the artist who seeks to replace and destroy the love he has for his ex-wife, the ex-wife who cannot live with or without love, the idealist who dreams of something intangible, the New Yorker who loves normality and security and the insecure girl who loves the idea that she could be more exciting than her friend.

The setting is a bit kitsch. Having been to Barcelona, I’m pretty sure there’s more to the city than Gaudi, tapas, Picasso and Spanish guitar – but this film would make you think otherwise. The colours are vibrant - reds, oranges and warm hues that saturate each scene signalling the undercurrent of passion seeping out the edges of each scene.

I wouldn’t say this film is a triumph, and will not appeal to fans of classic Allen hits like Manhattan, but the subject matter is interesting and the acting superb; with a special mention to Oscar winning Penelope Cruz.

Best Scene: Marie Elena's acid tongue Spanish comebacks having lunch with Juan and Cristina in the garden of his house. The enraged Javier and the innocent hospitality of Cristina.

Film Review: Watchmen

Leaving the cinema after watching Watchmen was a unique experience. I’ve never felt more void of love for the human race and simultaneous re-awakened to how precious and miraculous earth and mankind is. Strange doesn’t come close to explaining how I felt last night.

Watchmen as a film is beautiful to look at – the opening sequence is original, engaging and draws you into what is a cinematography triumph and a neat way to show 40 years of character back stories.

Set in an alternative 1980s where the Doomsday clock is symbolically indicates the imminent threat of nuclear destruction we watch as a disbanded group of vigilantes, re-unite in a fractured manner to solve the mystery of “The Comedian’s” death and the biggest joke of all – saving the pond scum of mankind from self destruction.

As a fan of graphic novels, Watchmen as a film doesn’t quite work – it felt disjointed. Like the original serialisation of the comic book the story changes to focus on individual characters intermittently during the film, but as a film medium this makes it harder to tie all the characters together. I like the way you can flip back through the pages in a comic to see how symbolism or narrative repeats itself and interlinks, it’s a bit harder to do that at 24 frames a second. However, Zak Synder is clearly a fan of the graphic novel Watchmen and that’s why he stayed (relatively) true to its form.

Sex is a theme which throws some light on the messages of this film. The romantic tryst between the overweight Daniel Dreiberg (Night Owl 2) and awkward Laurie Jupiter (Silk Spectre 2) is one of humble honesty reflecting awkward realities. Once re-awakened to their superhero duty and casting aside the “fears” they have as good citizens (the war and being stalked by a killer) they celebrate in leather clad, theatrical, confident and passionate form (hilarious symbolism in the climatic gas explosion). I’m not sure Alan Moore was trying to say that if you live your life to fight for what you believe in and not succumb to the propaganda and fear that the institutions of society create then you’ll have better sex, but it was implied!

The backdrop to this metropolis shows a society rife with nude shows, xxx clubs, prostitution, rape and child molestation. Society devoid of hope (no religion, leadership) living with the imminent threat of nuclear war and ruled by a corrupt president has lost all morals. Even the god like Dr Manhattan who cannot bring himself to fully indulge his sexual desire with his lover Laurie claims, in his Mars exile, he no longer cares for the human race.

Man has become a cancer to himself. This is what the beautiful, restrained Ozyimandias see and uses as motivation to set his drastic and ruthless plan of redemption into action. Of course Dr Manhattan is blamed as Ozyimandias has replicated his unique energy to destroy and save the world – a mirror to the real life Manhattan Project – developing the A Bomb to end one war and star another.

I’m naieve. The Watchmen made it clear to me that Chris Nolan is not as clever as I thought he was. The Dark Knight and Watchmen could be mistaken for being a genre of ‘new’ superhero movies, except it’s a concept Moore thought up 20 years ago. By turning the idea of a superhero on its head Moore, and the mixed bag of hero/ villains/ saviours that he created as the Watchmen, simply shows an age-old distrust and apathy for government and ruling institutions.

Moore mocks the concept of the traditional superhero – even though the Watchmen wear the fantastical costumes of traditional DC heroes, their roles are darkly more complicated and disturbing. Both realistic and absurd. The Minute Men who preceded the Watchmen were ex cops and themselves masked vigilanties. The next generation has Dr Manhattan, a supernatural being created by a man made nuclear accident.

Dr Manhattan rejects ‘costumes’ and is nude – his godlike status shows he has no man made constraints. Like a god he has the power to change the outcome of real events (Vietnam War and presidency of Richard Nixon) yet he is the one who needs to be convinced of mankind’s worth. As a godlike character, he ironically needs a miracle to be convinced of mankind’s worth. In recognising the random, chaotic way in which cells merge to make life he realises the value of man. But after 2 hours of watching the violent scum of society I was too depressed to share his enthusiasm.

I’m off for a dose of Disney to cheer myself up.

Best scene: Ozyimandias set to destroy the world from his polar temple, in full costume, stood atop a fabricated pyramid claiming “I’m not a comic book villain”. The irony was not lost on me.

Watchmen Trailer: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406490/video/10658091

Valkyrie Film Review

After months of reading about Valkyrie I finally went to see it this weekend. It was supposed to be launched last June, but United Artists’ marketing campaign flopped and in typical movie mogul style they held off for a more positive audience response. I’m glad they did, as I liked Valkyrie and took it for what it is - a Hollywood movie – it’s not an arthouse, authentic, gritty indie film, it’s a movie, entertainment, showbiz. So, it’s a bit strange to read some critics moan about the historical inaccuracies and the use of British and American accents. It’s a star-studded film, with Cruise at the forefront, what did they expect?

Well, of course Valkyrie isn’t historically accurate, these kinds of films rarely ever are. Director, Bryan Singer’s, taken a good story and made it accessible and entertaining for a wide audience and manages to offer an insight into the rarely portrayed Nazi side of the war – he gets across the story, after all it’s not a documentary.

I remember by GCSE History lessons, so I sympathise that it’s difficult to make a thriller when the audience knows the outcome. Which is why Singer does an excellent job with Valkyrie. He keeps the film exciting and engaging and the characters human and not cartoonish. Even the baddies aren’t pantomime villains. Hitler seems wizened and feeble, not monstourous and insane, and the German Captain of the Reserve Army seems apathetic and inpatient for the war to end – not a dedicated idealist of the Fatherland.

It’s unusual to see a mainstream film from the ‘German perspective’ (though I am aware of the many German protests about this film) but to show the ‘Nazi’s’ to have heart, even the ones who aren’t involved in Valkerie. Tom Wilkinson’s Colonel General Friedrich Fromm shows the attitude, I’m sure many Nazi party members had, the struggle for survival. Who is the right side to be on? It’s not about ideology; it’s about self-preservation.

The accent issue is conveniently side stepped with a nice German to American montage at the beginning (according to Cruise on the Jonathan Ross show, he does actually speak German as a result of his dedicated research as part of this film). Yar, vot a neat vay to zide ztep a potentially laughable mistake. Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Eddie Izzard and Cruise are excellent and I think it’s because they’re free to concentrate on their performance without the distraction of maintaining an accent.

Interesting how Tom Cruise was filmed. As the ‘big’ star, Singer’s direction has nicely levelled Cruise with his contemporary’s. There are few glory shots (upwards, heroic) and his natural height is not hidden with clever angles, though he did have a conveniently Cruise-sized sidekick, but that’s fair enough.

If anything Valkyrie made me sad my grandparents had lived through such a fearful and terrible period of history and sadder still that they never wanted to talk about it with younger generations.

Best scene: Taking the revised plan of Valkyrie to Hitler’s lair to have it signed, very tense and the fake eye is creepy.

Rachel Getting Married

Went to see this last night and absolutely loved it, by far my favourite Oscar nom film this year - though I am going to watch Milk and Frost/ Nixon this weekend, so things could change! There is so much to look at in this film, the attention to detail is fantastic and I definitely going to steal some of the Buchanon’s home decorating ideas for my place.

Hathaway is the only “star” in a Hollywood sense and she is brilliant, a far cry from Disney princesses or ‘comedy’ spy associate. The first time since Brokeback Mountain when you can really believe Hathaway is interested in acting and not in fame. She comfortably fits the indie film scene and she was a pleasure to watch.

The relationships and emotions of the characters all revolve around Kim’s (Hathaway) dark past. As the narrative unravels, the family tragedy is not as clear-cut as it seems. The family hang in the balance between blame and forgiveness not knowing what to do to move on. And for Kim, no closure, just continuing limbo both scrutinised and shunned.

The script is genius and very realistic, achieving a good equilibrium between things that need to be said (to move the plot) and things which are not, (because no-one ever would). The audience has to fill in the gaps, just as a real observer of the scene would. It’s not handed to you on a plate, and that’s just fine. Conversations undulate between fraught screaming matches to giggling, sisterly childhood reflections. This dichotomy between blame and forgiveness, between siblings and parents is fascinating, you’re always waiting for everyone to explode –sometimes they do, sometimes the atmosphere is cut dead, left flat, un-resolved.

The pivotal scene in the film is where Kim confronts her distant and artificial mother. Previously an ex-rehab inmate of Kim’s reveals she had been lying about the root of her additions. Confronting her mother, Kim shows the audience the selfish abandonment and irresponsibility of her mother who’s happy for Kim to shoulder all the blame. It’s then we understand Kim doesn’t forgive herself for Ethan’s death, but she doesn’t blame herself either. Maybe her sister and father understand this too, and that’s why they don’t blame her but don’t forgive her either. At the end of the scene you believe she will fulfil her destiny and career off the edge of the cliff, but just like the tense conversations, the scene cut’s short and lies flat, sad and poignant. You almost want her to end it, rather than hang in the balance forever.

Music in the film is very organic; it flows around the characters from within the characters. No score, just the guest musicians jamming and twiddling in the background. It’s a nice trick, and just as the audience might be tiring of their ever audible presence so too do the characters, asking, in one scene, politely but firmly that they shut it.

Best scenes: Kim’s self obsessed attention seeking wedding speech and the wedding when Samuel sings.